The daily herald. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1886-1887, 1887-04-21
A FIGHT FOR COIN.
The Michiels- Berger Battle-A $4,000
Purse.


The case wherein Charles Michiels
appears as plaintiff and c. O. Berger,
on the part of several insurance com
panies, appears as defendant in civil
case arising from a claim of the pay
ment Of $4,000, insurance on stock,
belonging to the said plaintiff, which |
was destroyed by fire on the 4th Of
August last, has occupied the attention
of Judge McCully, jury, and the
public generally, during the past few
days, in the Supreme Court.
The jury empanelled to hear the
case consist of Messrs. w. W. Hall, L.
Marshall, NJ. Green, T. X. Hendry, II.
]. Agnew, George Stratemeyer, H.
Lewis, c. ]. Mccarthy, Major Hills,
A. M. Mellis, II. A. Parmalee and Mr..
Marshall. The plaintiff, Michiels, is
represented by Messrs. Whiting and
Creighton, while to the defense is bent
the ability Of Messrs. Dare, Hatch and
Dole. Mr.. J. w. Cofran, Of San Fran
cisco, is present as a special agent for
the Hartford Insurance Co., and with
Mr. G. o. Berger represents the com
panies involved. The examination Of
witnesses, after the settlement Of the
preliminaries as regards arranging jurors
and opening statements by counsel,
was commenced on the afternoon Of
the roth inst. by the placing of the
plaintiff on the stand, whose examina-
ton lasted during that day and was
continued until Yesterday afternoon.
1.-The bulk of the testimony from this
witness was relative to the stock on
hand at the time Of the fire, its value,
etc. During his testimony il was re-
vealed that he had obtained a decided
advantage, in business dealings, by
being enabled to import a considera.
Bile quantity of his stock without the
necessity of payment Of the customs
duties at this port 1t was also in evi.
dence that during the year 1883 he
had the pleasure Of selling a large
quantity OF laces to HIS Majesty, Her
Majesty and ex-Chamberlaln Judd, be.
fore he commenced business and also,
presumably, before he obtained Ii
cense. He testified to having made Q
bill OF sale, drawn up by Mr.. Paul
Neumann, in favor Of Mr.. Whiting a
few days before the fire, for the pur-
pose of securing parties who had gone
bonds for him in another case in which
he was the defendant This bill Of
sale included all the stock and fixtures
: of and belonging to his place of bust
+ ness. During the last part of defend
ants cross and redirect examination
Testimony mainly tended to illumin'
, the cloud that IN the mind Of the at
torney for the defense) had settled OF
: the showing made by the invoices, anC
{ that revealed by the returns of the ap
] praisers (Messrs. Luning and StewarD
: the latter being largely in excess of the
J invoice papers the overplus, however
y was satisfactorily accounted for by the
S plaintiff. At ago o'clock Mr.. Michiel
was relieved from further exhibition o
endurance, and was allowed to retir'
j from the witness stand, and Mr.. Pierr
: Jones, the interpreter (the examination
4 OF Mr.. Michiels having been conducted
a through the language of Ia 6ells Frame
n was permitted to withdraw
s Mr., Charles Creighton, of the cour
r sci for plaintiff, testified to matters ar
: pertaining to the receipt, custody, an
l. temporary transfer of books to MI
s. Berger; the drawing up Of schedul
S, showing proof of loss, and that tn
10 prices extended we're fair estimates
values. On cross-examination, TIL
witness stated that the differences e.
isting between the total valuation
shown by the return Of the appraiser
IS, and that made by his client, the or
at being $1,000 and the other beir
al $I4, 900, was caused by the listing OF
number of articles on his (for ellen
returno of goods, which Mr.. Michiels h'
III stated we're in the store land destroye
II. at the time of the fire), but which d
er not appear on the appraisers list
A deposition by Mr.. Paul Neumar
- was read by Mr.. Whiting, containil
u but little OF importance other than
~ statement that be (Mr Neumann) d
~ not take away certain quantity
~ laces, piled up for delivery to him
~ Mr., Michiels, assigning as a reas'
=" that he "had no place to put then
II, Mr.. Neumann's deposition also &C
W. tanned statement to the effect tn
~, ~ although he told Mr.. c. 0. Berger Il
w he was Mr.. Michiels' attorney, yet Ii
-, gentleman refused to give him prof.
I'M documents to prepare his clients pre-
Of loss.
+. Mr. w. Austin Whiting, the attorr
eS, for the plaintiff, took the stand q
10. stated that the bill of sale translefr
mt the property to him was made out
50 Mr. Neumann, and taken by h
(Whiting) for the purpose OF secur